Madras High Court
The Executive Engineer vs C.Sivakumar on 24 January, 2022
CMA(MD)No.893 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
CMA(MD)No.893 of 2017 &
CMP(MD)No.9573 of 2017
The Executive Engineer,
TWAD Board, Erode - 1. ... Appellant
vs.
1.C.Sivakumar
2.R.Balasubramanian
3.United India Insurance Company Limited,
No.280, Ooty main road,
Mettupalayam,
Coimbatore District.
4.N.Kalidas
5.National Insurance Company Limited,
No.88, Bypass road,
Dharmapuri - 636 701. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated
05.04.2013 in MCOP.No.123/2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Karur.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Satheesh
For Respondents : Mr.R.Karunanithi for R2
Mr.A.S.Mathialagan for R3
Mr.D.Sivaraman for R5
No appearance for R1 and R4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
CMA(MD)No.893 of 2017
JUDGMENT
The appellant filed this appeal against the Judgment and Decree
dated 05.04.2013 in MCOP.No.123/2012 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Karur.
2. On 05.05.2004, the claimant was travelling as a passenger in a
Mahindra Jeep bearing Registration No.TN Q 2368. At about 04.30 am,
a Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.TN 47 D 6566 came in the opposite
direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Jeep, as a
result of which, the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries all over
his body.
3. The claimant filed MCOP.No.123/2012 claiming compensation
for the injuries sustained by him. The Tribunal after analysing the oral
and documentary evidences on record, awarded a sum of Rs.1,96,000/-
together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, as compensation and
directed the appellant and the second respondent herein to pay the
compensation jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the appellant
has preferred this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.893 of 2017
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
appellant had sold the Jeep bearing Registration No.TN Q 2368 to the
second respondent herein in auction on 19.09.2003. The accident
occurred only on 05.04.2004 and hence, the appellant is not liable to pay
compensation to the first respondent / claimant. Further, the Jeep is a
condemned vehicle which cannot be used for travelling purpose. Hence,
he prayed for exonerating the appellant from paying compensation to the
first respondent / claimant.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would
submit that the Jeep bearing Registration No.TN Q 2368 was insured
with the third respondent and hence, only the third respondent is liable to
pay compensation to the first respondent / claimant.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would
submit that the Tribunal had elaborately considered the oral and
documentary evidences and came to a conclusion that the third
respondent herein is not liable to pay compensation to the first
respondent / claimant. He therefore, prayed for the appeal as against the
third respondent to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.893 of 2017
7. A perusal of the Rough Sketch Ex.R3 would show that the
driver of the Jeep bearing Registration No.TN Q 2368 was responsible
for the accident. First Information Report was registered against the
driver of the Jeep and Charge Sheet was also filed against him. Hence,
the Tribunal was correct in fixing the entire negligence on the driver of
the Jeep. According to the appellant, they had sold the Jeep to the second
respondent in auction on 19.09.2003 by Sale Order Letter No.1709/F.
2369/Jeep/JDO.2/2003 dated 17.09.2003. The said Sale Order is also
produced before this Court. The second respondent had taken possession
of the Jeep from 19.09.2003 onwards. The accident occurred only on
05.05.2004 ie., nearly seven moths after the sale of the vehicle. In the
facts and circumstances, the appellant cannot be held liable to pay the
compensation since he had already sold the vehicle to another person and
accordingly, the appellant is hereby exonerated from their liability to pay
compensation. The Jeep was a condemned vehicle and hence it cannot
be used for travelling purpose. The second respondent, who is the
purchaser of the Jeep could neither use the Jeep nor allow any person to
use the Jeep for travelling purpose, as it is a condemned vehicle. Hence,
the second respondent is liable to compensate the first respondent /
claimant. The Jeep was insured with the third respondent / United India
Insurance Company. United India Insurance Company contended before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.893 of 2017
the Tribunal that the policy is only an Act Policy and hence the first
respondent / claimant, who was an occupant of the Jeep was not entitled
to get compensation from them. The Tribunal also accepted their
contention and exonerated them from paying the compensation. This
Court also concurs with the decision of the Tribunal in this regard.
Therefore, the second respondent / purchaser of the Jeep is liable to
compensate the first respondent / claimant.
8. In the result,
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(ii) The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
confirmed.
(iii) The second respondent herein is directed to deposit the
compensation ie., Rs.1,96,000/- (less the amount already deposited, if
any) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit of MCOP.No.123/2012
on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate
Court, Karur within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.893 of 2017
S.ANANTHI, J.
mbi
(iv) On such deposit being made, the first respondent / claimant is
at liberty to withdraw the same after following due process of law.
24.01.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mbi
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Principal Subordinate Court,
Karur.
CMA(MD)No.893 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
